“ I don’t think that people accept the fact that life doesn’t make sense. I think it makes people terribly uncomfortable.”
A recent experiment conducted at the University of Britsh Columbia and published by Psychological Science explored whether Tylenol could help people overcome the angst triggered watching a four-minute clip of director David Lynch’s disorienting film Rabbits. According to researcher Daniel Randles, the study concluded that acetaminophen acts to “block existential unease in the same way it prevents pain, because a similar neurological process is responsible for both types of distress.”
Reading about a study so weird (even by Lynchian standards) made me wonder how well Tylenol would work for an entire film directed by the eccentric auteur. More importantly – what would be the point in taking medicine to dull unease and anxiety while seeing such works? High risk of acetaminophen-induced liver damage aside, would it not actually hinder one’s experience of the Lynchian universe?
In his oeuvre, which includes critically and commercially successful films like The Elephant Man (1980), Blue Velvet (1986) and Mulholland Drive (2001) and the hit TV show Twin Peaks, perhaps the most mystifying work is his first feature-length project, Eraserhead (1977). Though not a commercial success at the time of its release, Eraserhead still grew a cult following in the art-house circuits and midnight movies. It moved the likes of Stanley Kubrick to herald it as one of the most perfect “cinematic experiences” created to date and cite it as the most critical inspiration for The Shining (1980). Though otherwise unwavering in his decision to keep his own interpretations of his work a secret, Lynch once fondly referred to his first film as “a dream of dark and troubling things." In this nightmare, we enter an alternate universe full of surreal dream sequences and grotesque creatures that may or may not exist. We are guided by a character who is equally lost and confused. Yet, we identify with him because our journey through the film and his journey through life are filled with the same existential struggles concerning authenticity, self-deception, bad faith, anguish, freedom and responsibility. Although Henry, the protagonist, initially seeks happiness by submitting to the decisions of others and feeling cursed by his sense of dread, it is anxiety that allows him to break away from passivity and realize his freedom.
In the beginning of the film, there does not seem to be much going on, particularly because our protagonist, Henry Spencer (Jack Nance), seems content with simply allowing events in his life to unfold as they come. We first see him walking home across a deserted lot. He seems to be pushed along by the wind and thrown up into the air by his apartment’s elevator. His movements are awkward and restricted, and he constantly looks back to see if anyone is around. He accepts a dinner invitation from Mary X, his ex-girlfriend, without any hint of suspicion or concern. At dinner, Henry politely interacts with Mary's parents though they are aloof, unmindful, and bizarre in their hospitality. When Henry learns that Mary has given birth to his baby and that her parents expect them to get married immediately, he does not question or protest any of it. Though he is visibly shocked and clearly unprepared for the arrangement, Henry reassures Mary that he has "no problem" with getting married. In their marriage, Henry concedes to Mary in every way and can't even voice his feelings when she leaves Henry to take care of their child by himself. With Mary gone, Henry raises his child dutifully, even sacrificing his love of jazz because playing music makes the baby cry. He continues to give up and repress his own feelings in order to make other people happy. Henry does not object to his growing responsibilities but he does not welcome them happily, either. Our protagonist passively yields to however he thinks he should act in any given situation. Henry acts inauthentically because he lives by society’s standards and denies himself the agency to make his own decisions. By doing so, he is denying his own freedom and responsibility. This is a form of self-deception, or bad faith in which the one to whom the lie is told and the one who lies are one and the same person,” requiring one to know his capacity as deceiver the truth that is hidden from him in his capacity as the one deceived (Sartre 89).
Henry’s inner thoughts, however, give away to viewers the extent to which he is aware of this self-deception. We can see his thoughts through the use of metaphorical imagery throughout the film. Metaphorical imagery allows us to “view the characters as neither literally experiencing the events depicted nor dreaming or fantasizing about those events” but instead the relationship between what we see and what it means are allegorical, because “the filmmaker intends the viewer to come to a specific understanding [of the former]” in ways that would not be possible through the use of literal imagery (Southworth 190). One such imagery is the window in Henry’s apartment, through which he can only see a brick wall. This cannot be taken as a factual depiction of the setting because it makes no sense to put a window where it is impossible to see outside. Instead, we must view it as a symbol of Henry’s feelings of entrapment and claustrophobia. Though he does not voice his dissatisfaction with his indecisive nature, Henry unwittingly admits through this scene that he is aware of the confinement that comes with passivity.
A metaphorical imagery more central to the film is the depiction of Henry’s child. The child appears to be an alien-like creature, with snakelike features and a fragile body held together by bandages and a blanket. According to a hysterical Mary who ultimately ends up abandoning her child, “they’re still not sure it is a baby.” Because it is impossible for a human to give birth to such a creature, the child is itself a symbol reflecting Mary and Henry’s true feelings about having a baby in their circumstance. The baby is not a bundle of joy that invokes feelings of paternal love and protectiveness but an alien creature that does not resemble them and becomes a burden to care for. The fact that Henry continues to look after his child by himself shows his acceptance of societal norms and allowing them to dictate his life. But his reaction also follows Sartre’s concept of bad faith because "that which affects itself with bad faith must be conscious of its bad faith” because “the being of consciousness is consciousness of being (89). No matter how hard he tries to align his emotions to this moral system, Henry only sees a monster when he looks at his child. As time goes on, Henry begins to dread interacting with his child more and more.
Henry’s anguish is mirrored in the film’s setting. From the very first seconds of the film, the sound design sets an atmosphere of dread. We hear dogs barking, furnaces churning, and unidentified machinery hissing away. The industrial sounds and low-level background noise unsettle us because we cannot identify them. It is not fear, which Sartre agrees with Kierkegaard's characterization as "something definite" and further describes as "fear of beings in the world," that consumes Henry’s apartment(Kierkegaard 139, Sartre 65). A deep, oppressive sense of worry permeates the film, as each ominous note of Fats Waller’s droning organ hints at something bad about to happen. We begin to understand Henry's anguish. His head is spinning with what Kierkegaard called a "dizziness of freedom" that originates from inside of him. Our protagonist is much like a soldier undergoing a bombardment in the sense that he is not only afraid of what is lurking in dark corners but is anxious about how he will possibly react when he comes face to face with his nightmares. Sartre’s definition of anguish as the "mode of being of freedom as consciousness of being" is very apt in this situation because Henry fears leaving the comfort of his passivity more than anything else and realization of freedom threatens his fatalistic inactivity (65). He is paralyzed by his own lack of action.
While these meaningless sounds fill Henry with dread, music actually gives his life joy and purpose. We see this in a literal sense when we see Henry smiling as he puts on jazz records. Of course, he is forced to give up that up because his child is disturbed by the sound of music. At this rate, it appears that the only treasured entity that cannot be taken away from Henry is the Lady in the Radiator. Like his depiction of the child, Henry’s vision of the Lady in the Radiator is also a metaphorical image. With bloated cheeks, the Lady in the Radiator is disfigured, but not grotesque. Yet she is the strangest figure in the film because she is always seen smiling, singing, or dancing and will go on to inspire other nameless enigmatic figures in Lynch’s work, such as the Man From Another Place (Twin Peaks), the Cowboy (Mulholland Drive), and the Mystery Man (Lost Highway). The Lady in the Radiator can be seen as a foil of Henry as well as Mary. Though Henry and the Lady are both similarly awkward and shy, the Lady is visibly happy. Unlike Mary, the Lady provides comfort and friendship to Henry, who is otherwise alone with his child. She sings to Henry a song that is both warm and morbid, assuring him that “in heaven, everything is fine.” Henry is transfixed by her song, and contemplates finding this heaven, wondering whether death is required to reach it. He wants to follow the Lady in the Radiator to heaven and leave all of his problems behind. Yet as he reaches out, his vision ends, signifying that happiness cannot be achieved through mere escapism. At this point, the Lady in the Radiator deems Henry unfit for the place where everything is fine because he still had not taken any action in order to find happiness for himself.
The next time Henry sees the Lady in the Radiator, she is dancing on a stage from which creatures resembling Henry’s baby falls from the ceiling. They are covering the entire floor, leaving no room to dance. This time, the Lady changes from her initial passive, sheepish temperament to an active, but destructive one in which she stomps on the creatures that are in her way. Henry tries to escape the rampage but is instead transported to another vision, one in which his head becomes detached from his body and is taken to a factory to be placed on the end of a pencil, much like an eraser. To make his head fit the pencil, the workers drill into his skull, emptying it out of his brain. There is eventually nothing left of Henry - no thought, no emotion - aside from a pile of eraser shavings. When Henry finally snaps back into “reality,” it appears that the two visions were actually metaphorical glimpses into Henry’s future. The first was the promise of happiness that would materialize once Henry decided to take control of his life, and the second would be his fate if he continued his passive existence.
Henry realizes that he does not have to reluctantly follow other people’s conventions because he has the power and freedom to act in ways that he wants to. His eyes grow wide and his hair stands on its ends and he is filled, for the first time, with determination and purpose. With this drive, Henry decides to stab his child until it bleeds to death. Even more chilling than this violent scene is when Henry removes the blanket from the child and sees that its organs were not held together by skeleton or skin. Henry sees just how weak the pressures of society’s expectations truly were compared to the strength of individual will. Perhaps following that disturbing sequence, one may want to opt for a Tylenol or two. Following this apparent infanticide, Henry once again sees the Lady in the Radiator. She smiles and embraces him, as if to say that everything is finally fine. Henry can finally pass into a realm of happiness because he fulfilled a very important requirement: he consciously acted for the sake of his own happiness.
It becomes clear that Henry’s final actions are ultimately a symbol of hope. He rejects what others think he should do and instead acts in a way he sees necessary. He sees for the first time in his life his possibility for freedom. Henry achieves what Kierkegaard asserted was “the goal of all a person’s striving” – not simply to “know oneself,” but also “to choose oneself” (81). The morality of Henry’s actions is secondary to the fact that he chooses to act. However, this does not absolve the narrator from our judgment. We do judge Henry’s actions, not by “designating [his] choice between good and evil” (75) but focusing on whether he makes “the choice by which one chooses good and evil or rules them out” (75). It is this act of choosing is one that gives individuals a “solemnity, a quiet dignity that is never entirely lost” (75). After a life of passivity and insincerity, Henry becomes the main actor in his life and finally achieves a state of authenticity.
By now, it is apparent how Eraserhead has solidified itself as an existential work through its exploration of authenticity, self-deception, bad faith, anxiety, freedom, and responsibility. But that still does not being to make sense of the film or explain the alien babies, women in radiators, or bizarre dream sequences. Of course, this is precisely how the film was intended to be seen. A self-proclaimed lover of“mysteries and dreams and ambiguities and absurdities,” David Lynch considers the uneasiness and confusion to be exactly the desired reactions. Albert Camus would credit this feeling of discomfort to humankind’s desire for significance and meaning in an otherwise cold, indifferent and absurd universe. This conflict would leave an individual with the choices of suicide, a leap of faith, or recognition of the absurd. Henry’s realization of freedom was recognition of absurdity. Through this recognition, Henry is able to establish his own purpose. He revolts against a world that constantly breaks him down by refusing suicide and also sets himself free from the prison of society’s moral codes. He immortalizes himself as an existential hero.
Works Cited
Hong, Howard V., and Edna H. Hong, eds. The Essential Kierkegaard. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2000. Print.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology. Trans. Hazel Estella. Barnes. New York: Washington Square, 1992. Print.
Southworth, Jason. ""In Heaven Everything Is Fine"" The Philosophy of David Lynch. By William J. Devlin and Shai Biderman. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, 2011. 189-205. Print.